in Re: Reverend Wesley Carroll v. Gaul,1 et al., W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-01576, on January 28, 2008, provides a…

DLD-156 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 08-1509
________________
IN RE: REVEREND WESLEY CARROLL,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania
(Related to W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-01707)
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
March 13, 2008
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
Filed: April 8, 2008
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Wesley Carroll, a frequent filer of pro se actions in the District Courts of this
circuit and of appellate proceedings in this Court, has filed a mandamus petition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania seeking to compel the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the District Court for the Western District of

-- 1 of 5 --

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued in Carroll v. Gaul,1
et al., W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-01576, on January 28, 2008, provides a numerical
summary of the civil actions and appeals initiated by Carroll.
2
Pennsylvania to perform certain acts. The petition was referred to a Magistrate Judge1
who issued a Report recommending that the mandamus petition be dismissed to the extent
that Carroll was attempting to seek an order compelling the Allegheny Court of Common
Pleas or any other state official to take certain actions. The Magistrate Judge further
recommended that Carroll’s petition be transferred to this Court to the extent he seeks an
order compelling the judges or staff of the District Court of the Western District of
Pennsylvania to perform any act. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation and entered an order dismissing Carroll’s petition in part
and transferring it, in part, to this Court. We will deny the petition.
Although Carroll’s filing is less than a model of clarity, he appears to argue that: 1)
numerous filings submitted over the course of several years have never been ruled upon
by the District Court and, due to the actions of the Clerk’s Office staff, most were not
even directed to the appropriate court official; 2) this Court ordered the District Court to
allow his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to proceed and be
granted, yet the District Court refused; and 3) although orders have been issued stating
that petitioner is being held illegally and should never have been imprisoned, he still
remains incarcerated. Carroll purports to be filing this mandamus petition on behalf of
himself and his children.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Initially, we note that, as the District Court properly concluded, Carroll may not
submit filings in a federal court as a representative of his children. Only an attorney duly
admitted to practice may enter an appearance on behalf of others and submit documents
for filing in federal court. See, e.g., Osei-Afriyie v. The Medical College of
Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991) (parent is not entitled, as a non-lawyer, to
represent his/her children in place of an attorney in federal court).
The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. To justify the Court’s use of
this remedy, a petitioner must demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to
issuance of the writ. Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976);
DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). No such showing has been made in
the instant case.
While Carroll alleges that various documents submitted to the District Court for
filing were never entered on the docket and/or ruled upon by the court, and that many
were improperly returned to him with letters from court personnel, he fails to submit
anything to support these bald assertions. With the exception of one referenced action,
petitioner does not so much as provide the civil action number under which the filings
were allegedly submitted. Without such support, it is impossible to conclude that Carroll
has a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief, especially when a review of the
District Court docket shows that a steady stream of submissions has been filed in his
various civil actions. With respect to the one civil action which Carroll references by

-- 3 of 5 --

4
number, we would simply note that petitioner’s notice of appeal with attached “Notice of
Appeal: Petition for Writ of Error ... and Petition to Vacate and Set Aside ... Conviction
and Sentence” was filed on the docket in W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 05-cv-00002 on May 8, 2007.
Moreover, while Carroll may be dissatisfied with the District Court’s
determination regarding how to properly treat certain submissions forwarded to it by the
District Court’s Clerk’s Office staff, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its
docket is within its discretion, see In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 685 F.2d 810 (3d
Cir. 1982), and an appellate court will not interfere with that discretion except upon the
clearest showing that the District Court’s decision substantially prejudiced the litigant. Id
at 817. Insofar as Carroll seeks to challenge the effect of the District Court’s handling of
a particular submission on its ultimate disposition of his cause of action, he is, of course,
free to challenge any such action on appeal from the entry of a final order.
Mandamus relief with respect to the remainder of the assertions set forth in
Carroll’s petition is likewise unwarranted. Carroll alleges that this Court ordered the
District Court to allow his habeas corpus petition to “proceed and be granted,” yet the
District Court refused. Our order actually provided, however, that Carroll’s request for a
certificate of appealability was denied, but that he may file a new habeas petition within
90 days of that order – which was issued on August 28, 2007 – if the Allegheny Court of
Common Pleas had not decided his post-trial motions. See C.A. No. 07-2063. Carroll
did, in fact, file another habeas petition which was ruled upon by the District Court. See

-- 4 of 5 --

Carroll’s motion seeking an “Emergency Injunction, TRO, Writ of Prohibition,2
Appointment of Counsel, Protection From Abuse, Prior to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985 and 18
U.S.C. § 241 et seq.” is likewise denied. As petitioner is well aware, this type of filing –
wherein he seeks to initiate a new cause of action against, inter alia, SCI-Waymart and
various Department of Corrections’ employees – must be filed in the appropriate District
Court after the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
5
W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-01661. In an order issued on January 10, 2008, the District
Court again dismissed Carroll’s petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies
after concluding that the Court of Common Pleas had denied his post-trial motions within
the time period set forth in our order, and that Carroll’s appeal to the Pennsylvania
Superior Court remained pending.
Finally, Carroll offers nothing to support his assertion that orders have been issued
declaring his incarceration to be illegal, and that the District Court has somehow violated
these declarations by refusing to order his release from prison.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be
denied.2

-- 5 of 5 --